Best directorial debuts?

Christian Taylor3 said:p.s. I wonder who saw the first Hillcoat movie— Ghosts... of the Civil Dead?

As far as I'm aware, it was just me. 🙂 🙂

Hillcoat's work is intense, arguably his most grueling. A prison-set art film... well, if that's even your cup of tea.

Christian Taylor3 said:Relax, this thread isn't nonsense—Amanda Nguyen5 was just having a rough day yesterday (whatever she meant by "nonsense" 🙂).

I meant nonsense as in futile or pointless, not like stupid or any other insult, because I’m really not about that kind of energy.

The issue is that these movies are only linked by the fact that they were the creators' first outings, and nothing else. It would be way more useful to talk about them in their specific director threads rather than here. Over there, you can actually connect them to later work or whatever, but here they’re just isolated because they're labeled as "Debut films." We end up with nothing to do with them except, as the nostalgic Christian Taylor3 puts it, reminisce and recommend them. 🤷

But honestly, this whole thread actually pushed me to rewatch the first Melville film, and once again, I realized I still don't get that intro at all—though I admire him even more for it.

Arthur Garcia59 said:Could you just clarify that bit? It probably wouldn't hurt to specify which Debut film you're talking about.

Fair enough, that was a bit vague of me. My bad.

Arthur Garcia59 said:I meant "pointless" in a futile or senseless way, not like calling someone stupid or anything insulting—I'm really not the type to go around throwing insults.

The issue is that the only thing connecting these movies is that they happen to be the first ones made by their directors. Beyond that, it feels like it would be more productive to discuss them in their own specific threads. There, you can actually link them to the director's later work or build a real conversation. Here, they feel isolated because they’re just categorized as "Debut films." We don't have much to do with them here, other than reminisce about them or recommend them, as the nostalgic Christian Taylor3 might say. 🤷
That said, I have to admit this thread actually nudged me into rewatching the first Jean-Pierre Melville film. Once again, I realized I still don't quite grasp that intro, though I admire him all the more for it.

I get that you aren't feeling this thread, but you have to admit there have been much worse ones.🙂

I was actually planning to write a little something about Ossessione, Element of Crime, L'Atalante, and La Commare Secca, but seeing these tangents about everything being futile and meaningless makes me lose interest.

It is pretty ironic, though, that those big dedicated threads for these directors are usually completely deserted.

goldenhound32 said:as far as I know, I'm the only one 🙂 🙂

That's false.

Joshua Smith5 said:That’s simply not true.

It is.>

Mark Wood79 said:Look, I get that you aren't feeling this thread, but you have to admit there have been much worse ones.🙂

I was actually planning on writing a bit about Ossessione, Element of Crime, L'Atalante, and La Commare Secca. But seeing all this spiraling where everything feels pointless? It just kills my vibe. I lose the will to even try.

It’s funny, though—those massive dedicated threads? Not a single soul in them.

It’s not that I "like" or "dislike" the thread. There isn't really anything to like or dislike here. I just don't see the point.
Again, I love your enthusiasm, seriously. Go ahead and write about those films (I'm a huge von Trier fan, by the way, totally blanked on the name), but I don't get why you're posting here instead of in the specific threads we already have.
Maybe people would actually show up there. Instead, we just keep opening new threads that, after a tiny bit of time, end up completely dead.

Plus, if someone wants to learn something about Jean Vigo a year from now, they aren't going to stumble upon a "Debut films" thread. They won't even know it exists. But if they check out the "Jean Vigo" thread? They'll find exactly what they need. Same goes for every other director.

Those are my arguments. Look, I'm not trying to be difficult. I just think it would be way more useful and simpler if we didn't have this thread. Save that energy and put it somewhere else. 😉

Arthur Garcia59 said:Honestly, this thread is stupid because there are so few great directors, especially if you exclude those swallowed by the industry like Hawks or Ozu, whose Debut film was terrible.

This topic is great, and I’m surprised it didn't exist sooner. It’s not about whether good directors have bad first movies. It’s about the weird phenomenon where, for quite a few people, their debut is actually the best thing they ever made. Looking at the list so far, I’d put Godard, Tarantino, Mendes, Zvyagintsev (though his career is still ahead of him, so I fear he might struggle to top his debut), Guy Ritchie, K. Smith, Šijan, Kasdan, and Menzel in that category. Plenty of others are close. I’m certain about these guys.🙂

If we looked at their first two films, the list would be way longer.

I agree—this isn't the place to nitpick individual movies. Use specific threads for that. If one doesn't exist, start it.

Scott Long71 said:The topic is great, and I'm honestly surprised it didn't pop up sooner. It’s not just about great directors having a mediocre Debut film once in a while. It's about this weird phenomenon where, for quite a few people—and we aren't talking about a tiny handful here—their very first movie actually ends up being their absolute best work.

I agree that this isn't the spot to deep-dive into specific movies. If there isn't a dedicated thread for a particular film, go ahead and start one.

Hold on a second. So, just because a bunch of directors—most of them, even—had a debut that turned out to be their peak, that's enough to justify an entire thread? But what's the goal here? We start a topic, and then what? Just sit around waiting for everyone to say "yeah" or "nah"? And then what? What's the point?

Especially since you're agreeing with me that this isn't the place to talk about specific (debut) films.

Arthur Garcia59 said:Hold on a second—so you're telling me that the mere fact a few directors happened to have their best work as a debut film is enough of a reason to start an entire thread?

Exactly, just another brilliant topic added to an already stellar thread. 🙂 Besides, we aren't just sitting here rattling off a list of debut films for the sake of it...

Reading about how some of these legendary, award-winning directors navigated that long, messy slog from their first spark of an idea to the actual critical reception of their Debut film is more than just a fun way to kill time; honestly, it can be pretty inspiring when you're in the middle of your own struggle. Diving into their creative journeys does a great job of demystifying the whole shiny, polished facade of the film industry, showing that beyond whatever specific talent they happen to possess, success really boils down to grit, sheer persistence, and having the guts to take a massive risk. And let’s be real, having the right connections certainly doesn't hurt either. So, I don't think it's a stretch to say that the topic of...Debut films.It really ought to be mandatory reading for anyone who actually considers themselves a true cinephile, and honestly, it’s just as essential for aspiring filmmakers. It would probably do a lot of good if people with even a modicum of experience took a look at it too.

So, that’s basically how my little mind is processing this whole thread.

🙂

I suppose I should probably start by redefining what we're actually doing here, though I’m not entirely sure if anyone is actually listening to me or if I'm just shouting into the void of the internet again. It feels like we spend half our time arguing about technicalities that don't matter and the other half pretending we have all the answers when, in reality, most of us are just making it up as we go along. If we're going to make sense of this conversation, we might need to stop looking at things through such a narrow lens and maybe try to actually engage with the core ideas instead of just nitpicking the surface level stuff. It's a bit exhausting, honestly, trying to find some semblance of common ground when everyone seems so set in their ways, but I guess that's just the nature of the beast. kaže:
If I don't get this down now, it’s going to slip my mind entirely. Chugyeog (I finally sat down to watch The Chaser, and honestly, my head is still spinning a little from the sheer intensity of it all. It’s one of those movies that just refuses to let you breathe, dragging you through this relentless, gritty pursuit that feels far too close to reality to be comfortable. I went in expecting a standard thriller, but what I got was something much more visceral and punishing. There’s a certain kind of exhaustion that sets in by the end, not because the pacing drags, but because the emotional weight is just so heavy. It really makes you sit there wondering how much more a person can take before they completely break.Na Hong-jina. 🙏

Just another one. Matryoshka! 🙂 It feels like debut films are under a massive microscope lately, almost as if their directors aren't allowed to make even a single mistake without the whole world judging them for it. Short and sweet.. 😁 The The Chaser I just need to sit down and watch it.

Watching a film like this really drives home just how much we've been missing lately. It feels like so many modern movies are nothing more than smoke and mirrors, all flash with zero substance. But then you sit through something like The Chaser, and you realize the director actually had a vision—they knew exactly what they wanted to achieve and, more importantly, they didn't feel the need to insult our intelligence to get there. Beyond just making a remake of this, Hollywood should study IT..

That’s actually pretty fascinating.

Arthur Garcia59 said:Hold on. So just because certain directors—and most of them, actually—have their debut film as their best work, that’s enough to justify starting a thread? What's the goal here? To start a topic just to ask people to confirm or deny it? And then what?

Especially since you already agreed with me that this isn't the place to nitpick specific (debut) films.

Now that's an interesting premise for a debate. How? Why? Is it really true? Listing debut films is also a fascinating exercise. A director's early work holds a special place in their entire body of work; you can practically see what's coming next. It's their DNA. Any later shifts are just predictable mutations. Or are they?

Besides, there's a classic response to your complaint: if you think the topic is stupid, don't troll. Some people actually find it interesting.

Arthur Garcia59 said:It’s not that I dislike the thread—there isn't really anything to like or dislike here—I just don't see the point.
Again, I think your enthusiasm is great, so please keep talking about those films (I'm a von Trier fan myself, if you can believe it), but I don't understand why you're posting them here instead of in the dedicated threads we already have.
If you posted there, you might actually reach people interested in those subjects. Otherwise, we end up opening new threads every single day that quickly become ghost towns.

Plus, if someone wanted to learn something about Jean Vigo a year from now, they wouldn't think to look in a "Debut Films" thread; they wouldn't even know what they'd find. On the other hand, they could easily check out a "Jean Vigo" thread and find exactly what they need. The same logic applies to all the other directors.

Those are my thoughts. Like I said, it's nothing personal, I just think it would be more useful and straightforward to skip this specific thread and channel that energy elsewhere. 😉

You jumped into this discussion and immediately dropped names like Anderson, Berković, Resnais, Erice, and others. Why do that? Why not just say right away that the thread doesn't make sense? What would you have done if someone had replied and started a deep dive into Rondo?

Then you mentioned you decided to go back and watch the first Melville film.

This thread is meant for discussing debut works—how they shaped a director's career, what influences are visible in them, and so on. There's plenty of room for depth here.
It's a space to share information about certain films, nothing more. Every thread, except for the "last movie we watched" one, has some kind of boundary.

I know it would be much nicer if the forum was overflowing with massive threads titled "Jean-Pierre Melville," "Sergio Leone," "Marcel Carne," "Fritz Lang," "Italian Neorealism," "French New Wave," or "New German Cinema"—where you wouldn't even know where to click because there's so much activity. But that's not our reality. I think this thread is clearly defined enough to stay on track, yet broad enough for us to have diverse discussions, swap opinions, and challenge ourselves to remember a director's debut and everything connected to it.

And don't even get me started on the potential for recommendations. For instance, you mention a debut, praise it, explain its significance, and point out the influences. You aren't just encouraging someone to watch that film—though they might continue their journey if they enjoy it—you're also giving them a roadmap of what else to watch.

Forget about what happens a year from now; we're here right now. You talk about preserving enthusiasm... but if I followed that logic, the "last movie we watched" thread would fall apart too, because every time I watched something and wanted to post about it, I'd head straight to the main director threads instead of the general one.

By the way, I'm planning to dig up some old director-specific threads soon to drop a few titles in there. But that's separate from this discussion.

Christian Taylor3 said:Reading about how some of the most famous, acclaimed directors navigated the long road from that first spark of an idea to the final critical reception of their Debut film isn't just entertaining—it’s actually pretty inspiring. Their creative journeys do more than just pull back the curtain on the glitz and glamour of the movie industry; they show that beyond whatever talent you bring to the table, success really demands creativity, grit, and the courage to take risks. And sure, having the right connections certainly doesn't hurt. Because of that, I don't think it's an overstatement to say that the topic of 'Debut films' should be essential reading for true cinephiles and aspiring filmmakers alike. Honestly, even those who have been in the industry for a while could find something useful by looking into it.

You really put that beautifully. 👍

Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, The Maltese Falcon, Reservoir Dogs, Blood Simple...

Mark Wood79 said:That was actually a really well-written point. 👍

Well, I'm just flattering myself, really. 😁

Charles Martin2 said:

the human contract (2009)
Jada Pinkett Smith

😕

It’s probably because you guys stripped the "best" parts right out of the thread. Anyway, someone beat me to my exact wording:

I went into this film with low expectations since Jada Pinkett Smith has never been a good actress and now not a good director. The film has every cliché that you can imagine and the personal relationships are contrived at best.

The director as a woman had her husband beg and plead for this opportunity instead of earning the opportunity herself. You don't start as a film director, because TV is usually the proving ground to get you noticed.

These Hollywood couples make me want to puke because they spin out dreck like this film which is nothing new at all.

Something similar (though slightly different) happens to our own newcomers:

Another quirk about America—which is equally exhausting—is that first the parents, or both of them, finish Juilliard, and then the kids, grandkids, and extended family follow suit, all seemingly gifted since the dawn of time, and everyone suddenly decides they need to work in theater, film, or at Juilliard.

😬

Back to the topic:

Basically, debut films are under a microscope these days, and their creators aren't allowed a single mistake. Short and sweet. 😁

Long Story Short, first it's goldenhound32 discovered Short Leg Spider, and we've also seen some other short Nash Edgerton stuff. Nash actually wrapped up his first feature film back in 2008 - The Square (though the Dragonrage radar picked it up as early as 2009).

PLOT
Some things just won't stay buried

Every so often, a thriller rolls around that actually gets under your skin, turns your stomach, and leaves you breathless.

Well, now America has a new thriller that hits with that same raw emotional weight. First-time director Nash Edgerton and his brother—who wrote and starred in it—Joel Edgerton, have put together an intense, moody, and provocative film noir fueled by moral decay and a slow-burning fuse... It asks the big questions: what happens when supposedly decent people commit terrible acts, how much will they sacrifice to protect their own, and what lengths will they go to in order to bury the truth? With a heavy-hitting ensemble cast, the Edgerton Brothers pull you into a dark, gritty world where nobody is truly who they claim to be and everyone has a price.

It’s no small feat (especially these days) to make a debut film that steps into the film noir arena and manages—in the best possible sense—to be compared to the top-tier work of Sam Raimi or the Coen brothers. You should really give this one a watch. 👍

p.s. The Burning Plain by Guillermo Arriaga. Arriaga used to be the right-hand man for Alejandro González Iñárritu, having penned the scripts for Amores Perros, Grams, The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada, Babel... But they had a falling out and decided to head in different directions.😢 As a result of that split, Guillermo decided to strike out on his own, so we'll just have to see how Iñárritu manages without him (Biutiful was actually part of the official lineup at the Cannes Film Festival). One thing is certain: they both lose something by ending that partnership.

Christian Taylor3 said:One thing is certain: they both lose out when this partnership ends.

The film industry loses a bit here, though I suspect Iñárritu will manage to bounce back just fine.

I fear we’re seeing the same pattern with Arriaga as we saw with Alan Ball—the man behind the series Six Feet Under. Now, don't get me wrong, Ball is a brilliant screenwriter (he even snagged an Oscar for the American Beauty script), but his transition into the director's chair? Not exactly stellar. His debut, Nothing is Private... if he had handled the direction with a bit more finesse, it could have been an easy 🙂

But even so, it remains a decent enough film.👍

Since we've drifted into the territory of writers turning directors, I can't quite believe I overlooked a genius like Charlie Kaufman.🙈

His debut, Synecdoche, New York, is an absolute masterpiece.🙏 It’s far more visceral than Being John Malkovich, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, or Adaptation. The film is so intensely specific that attempting to critique Kaufman's directorial style feels almost impossible; there is simply too much density to unpack.

Easy Rider Hopper
I guess you could call it a dry spell—just a bit of a rough patch. Bernardo Bertolucci
Harris Pollock I'm not quite sure what you mean by that—maybe I missed the context entirely? My bad!
Dances with Wolves. Such a massive, sweeping epic—really sticks with you. Costa Hard Times Hill
Costa Hard Times Hill I can't quite tell what you meant by that—it looks like a typo or maybe just a fragment! If you were trying to say something specific, please let me know—I'd love to catch up on the conversation.

These are definitely films worth watching—especially Hopper's debut, which he hasn't quite topped since then (:

Caught I Killed My Mother, the debut from Xavier Dolan Xavier Dolan. This twenty-year-old handled everything—script, direction, production, and the lead role of a rebellious high schooler dealing with endless drama... including his mother. It’s semi-autobiographical and hits hard. I found his use of slow motion and fast cuts to mirror emotional shifts quite effective, not to mention his high-energy performance.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1424797/